Post navigation

Catholic, Protestant and Muslim Mothers unite in Support of Traditional Marriage.

Three mothers from South London have come together to represent their communities in support of traditional marriage. Whilst all respect the fact that individuals can live how they choose, they believe that marriage is, and always has been, a sacred institution between 1 woman and 1 man. All three have signed a letter explaining their views and presented it to their local MP:

Katie McGowan, a Protestant Christian says “Our faiths dictate that ‘marriage’ is an institution between one man and one woman. In countries where marriage has already been redefined, people of faith have faced prosecution for upholding their beliefs. Evidence shows that governments have not been able to protect ordinary people who believe in traditional marriage. We worry that, should the bill be successful, teachers will be sacked for refusing to endorse gay marriage in the classroom, and couples will be banned from fostering children if they disagree with gay marriage. Obviously, these are just a couple of examples.
Furthermore, it may be assumed that the general public are largely in favour this proposal. However, the voters have not been given a say. None of the parties included it in their election manifestos. Marriage is going to be redefined over our heads. In a recent poll by YouGov for The Sunday Times, published on 11 March 2012, a larger proportion of those questioned were against gay marriage than were for it.”

Asma Dar, a Muslim says “Marriage is meant for 1 woman and 1 man, and it is the place to raise a family. We believe that all children have the right to a Mother and a Father. Sadly, however well-meaning they are, a same-sex couple simply cannot offer this to a child. If my husband and I were to die suddenly and our 3 girls were taken into the care of the local authority, it would be possible that they be placed with two men. This would not only be against our wishes and our faith, but it would also rob our girls of any chance of having a mother. What indeed is the legal position of the wishes of deceased parents on this issue?
According to the 2011 Office for National Statistics survey, the gay population in the UK stands at 1%. The population for Christians and Muslims combined stands at 64.1%. The majority of UK residents oppose the bill on the grounds of faith. If marriage is re-defined, the new law will be forced upon millions of people who strongly oppose it. This is especially true in the area of education and adoption. We are stepping into unknown territory and no-one can predict the effect this law will have on children and on society as a whole.”

Clare Short, a Roman Catholic says “I think it is a disgrace that teachers could face being sacked if they fail to promote same-sex relationships to children as young as age 4. Why doesn’t the government concentrate on teaching our kids to read and write, rather than forcing sexual information on them that they really don’t need to know about at that young age. This is a deeply personal political issue that is doing more harm than good in society. I believe it is creating unwanted tension between the gay and straight communities. It is not something people of faith are ‘just going to get used to’ over time. It is an issue of such importance, that we are willing to fight against it for as long as it takes. There is a particularly nasty undertone in the UK at the moment where people are being made to feel guilty for expressing their opposition to the re-definition of marriage on the grounds of being ‘politically incorrect’. This sort of political bullying is completely unacceptable in a civilised democratic society. We hope from reading our story that more people will find the confidence to contact their MP to voice their opinion. Every voice counts.
The issue of re-defining marriage is uniting people of all faiths, and also those who do not have a faith. David Cameron needs to realise that the vast majority of people in the UK do not want marriage re-defined.”

Legally, marriage is a civil union not a religious one, which is why we can legally marry outside religious buildings as atheists, and it is wrong that any group is excluded from civil arrangements.

All the arguments about religious people beings attacked and at risk of persecution is a moot point really because that’s true of both sides of the argument – people will always attack what they don’t agree with and religious people being persecuted is no different from atheists being persecuted for their beliefs. For me, being insulted or mocked for your views as someone who doesn’t believe in gay marriage is in no way comparable to the persecution of someone who wants to marry the love of their life but is prevented from doing it because of the sex of that person.

The major difference to me is that people who are anti gay marriage are attacking something that, in the big scheme of things, will not really affect their lives. It’s unlikely that your children will ever be adopted by a gay couple, it’s unlikely your child’s friendly teacher will suddenly start singing the virtues of gay marriage in any life-changing way, it’s unlikely you’ll ever even attend a gay wedding. The world will not fall apart.

But just imagine the difference to the lives of a couple who are in love and can be wed. They may not be a woman and a man, they may not be able to have children naturally (but since when has this been a condition of hetero marriage?). But their lives will be better – and they shouldn’t need the OK of the general public to achieve it

Thanks Helen for your comment. I think the main thing people of faith find offensive about Gay marriage (opposed to civil partnerships) is that marriage takes place in a place of worship. So the couples union is blessed by God. In the vast majority of faiths, homosexual acts are regarded as a grave sin – and so a gay union is never going to be something that can be celebrated. This is a purely faith based augment and one that you need to try to understand from our point of view. From your point of view homosexual acts are not sinful and so of course there is no problem with it. But it is important that you try to understand our argument with tolerance and compassion – otherwise you will just start hating us for our “stupid” beliefs!
I’m afraid I also have to disagree with you on the point that re-defining marriage will not effect wider society. It will have huge implications actually. I spent the last year studying Marriage and Family life and in our last module we focused on the sociological aspects marriage ie. how marriage fits into, builds, and effects wider society. The relationship between Husband and Wife is the basic building block for society. Male and female roles are equal in dignity but rather than being identical (which they are not) they are instead complimentary to each other – thus giving automatic dignity to each spouse based solely on their gender. Forward from this, we get the role of mother and father – two distinct separate roles of equal dignity. This situation has been widely acclaimed within the scientific community as being the model of choice for raising children. Children need a mother and a father and those that have both have significantly better adult life outcomes than those who don’t.
When society begins to mess with gender roles and tries to elevate same-sex relationships to the same level as hetero relationships, it is overlooking and losing something fundamentally important. Men and Women are different. They are equal in dignity but they have different bodies and different roles in family life. By design they are meant to be together, and this is called marriage. It is the basic fundamental building block of society. It always has been throughout every culture and every civilisation. If that gender difference is removed, society as a whole loses something fundamentally important. I am afraid that however well meaning they are, a lesbian couple will never be able to offer the role of father like a man can. To pretend they can fundamentally undermines a mans role as father. Do you see what I mean? It is a very complex and deep seated sociological argument – and one that is accepted by those of faith and those of no faith.
In the vast majority of organised religions, these male and female roles are upheld with dignity. And the union of a man and a woman is something that is life giving and sacred. A same-sex union is simple not equal to this.
I hope that explains things a little better – sorry it was rather long winded! But I hope that more people will come to understand that there are real reasons – not prejudice that underpins our argument.